Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Warren Commission


Recommended Posts

Why didn't you mention the fact that the CBS shooters weren't using Oswald's C2766 rifle? (Which, of course, they weren't.) I'm surprised you didn't mention that fact.

David, exactly what was the reenactment attempting to prove, that it was POSSIIBLE or that it was fact ?

You take MASTER riflemen

Positioned at a different distance

Have them firing at stationary targets

With a weapon other than the alleged murder weapon

What the hell do you think you're PROVING ?

None of the controls that existed at the time of the crime are being used.

IOW, YOU'RE NOT RE-ENACTING ANYTHING !!!

ROFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?

The bullets were reloads with low powder charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the SBT is wrong (and particularly in the case of the theories which have JFK hit by TWO separate bullets to replace the one bullet of the SBT), then how can you account for those TWO bullets not hitting any bony structures or the lungs of President Kennedy, and yet STILL those two bullets inexplicably stopped inside JFK's back/neck?

The bullets were reloads with low powder charges.

Interesting, Gil. Can you amplify the details on why some of the shooters would be using this type of ammo?

In the past, various posters here have also discussed the possible use of a low-powered projectile used to deliver a fast acting paralytic. The nature of the back and throat wounds lends itself to these types of options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't you mention the fact that the CBS shooters weren't using Oswald's C2766 rifle? (Which, of course, they weren't.) I'm surprised you didn't mention that fact.

David, exactly what was the reenactment attempting to prove, that it was POSSIIBLE or that it was fact ?

You take MASTER riflemen

Positioned at a different distance

Have them firing at stationary targets

With a weapon other than the alleged murder weapon

What the hell do you think you're PROVING ?

None of the controls that existed at the time of the crime are being used.

IOW, YOU'RE NOT RE-ENACTING ANYTHING !!!

ROFL

Both the Warren Commission and CBS knew, IMO, that it was unlikely Oswald did the shooting, but pushed he did it anyhow. I mean, if it's remotely possible he did it, he must have done it, right?

From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

After Frazier, Ronald Simmons, the Chief of the Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Laboratory of the Department of the Army, testifies, and things only get worse. He states that Oswald’s rifle was as accurate as the current standard issue rifle of the U.S. Army, the M-14, but acknowledges that his three test shooters “could not sight the weapon in using the telescope and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation.” He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing.

Simmons also discusses a simulation of the shooting performed by these shooters. He relates that they made seven attempts to replicate the shooting by rapid firing on three stationary targets at the presumed distances of the shots in Dealey Plaza. Simmons details: "All firers hit the first target, which was emplaced at 175 feet...for the first four attempts, the firers missed the second target...there were only two rounds which did not hit the target at 270 feet..." He then gives the time it took for his shooters to fire these shots: "Mr. Hendrix fired twice. The time for the first exercise was 8.25 seconds; the time for the second exercise was 7.0 seconds. Mr. Staley, on the first exercise, fired in 6 3/4 seconds; the second attempt he used 6.45 seconds. Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight..."

He then discusses Mr. Miller's shots in more detail: "Mr. Miller succeeded in hitting the third target on both attempts with the telescope. He missed the second target on both attempts with the telescope but he hit the second target with the iron sight. And he emplaced all three rounds on the target, the first target...On the third target he missed the boards completely. And we have not checked this out. It appears that for the firing posture which Mr. Miller--Specialist Miller uses, the iron sight is not zeroed for him, since his impacts on the first and second targets were quite high, and against the third target we would assume that the projectile went over the top of the target, which extended only a few inches over the top of the silhouette." When asked what preparation these shooters were allowed to undertake, before attempting these shots, Simmons then relates: "They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin."

Simmons eventually concludes that "in order to achieve three hits, it would not be required that a man be an exceptional shot. A proficient man with this weapon, yes." (Testimony of Ronald Simmons, 3H441-451)

Curiously, there is no evidence that Oswald was proficient with his weapon. Prior to 11-22-63, the only time Oswald was believed to have fired his rifle at a living thing was back in April, 1963. And that purported shot, fired at a right-wing fanatic named General Walker as he sat at a desk in his home, missed. There is no record of Oswald firing his rifle in the months leading up to the assassination. The rumors of his practicing at various shooting ranges around Dallas were all discredited by the FBI. Furthermore, there were no rifle-cleaning supplies or even extra ammunition found among his possessions. Thus, when Simmons testifies that Oswald’s rifle was substandard and that only someone with a lot of experience with the rifle could compensate for its shortcomings, he is unwittingly arguing for Oswald's innocence. Particularly in that Simmons knew full well his test shooters did not fire nearly as well as claimed...

When one looks at the targets his men fired upon, Commission Exhibits 582-584, it's startlingly clear Simmons' definition of a hit is not what any reasonable person would consider a hit. Oswald was purported to have hit Kennedy once in the base of the neck and once in the head in 6 seconds or less. The targets the Army shooters fired upon were not only stationary targets, they were far larger than the small area on Kennedy hit by the sniper...twice. While one might claim the shooters were merely interested in hitting the targets, and not specific points on the targets, one cannot reasonably claim they would deliberately not hit this target in as central a location as possible. Thus, a re-examination of the Army's targets, counting as hits only those hits landing between the extended sides of the neck on the target, indicates that the Army's shooters hit the first shot 6 of 7 times, the second shot 3 of 7 times, and the third shot but 2 of 7 times, with both hits landing on the back.

When one looks even closer, and considers that the Army's shooters would also be trying to hit the center of the target vertically, and compares their hits between the neck lines on the targets to the purported location of the hits on Kennedy, it gets even worse. (Simmons, in fact, testified that he'd assumed the shooters were firing at the intersection of lines at the center of the target.) Only one or two of the hits on the first target, when the shooters had ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD, landed as close to the center of the target as the two hits purportedly rapid-fired by Oswald. Even worse (yes, even worse), NOT ONE of the 14 shots rapid fired on the last two targets landed anywhere near as close the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.

The Army shooters' failure to replicate the fatal head shot, even though the rifle had been re-aligned just for this purpose, and even though their target was quite stationary, is incredibly problematic for the Commission, and should force them to re-evaluate Oswald's presumed ability with a rifle. They must know the public will not buy that such fantastic shots with such a mediocre rifle were fired by a man who hadn't practiced in months, and was never very good to begin with. They must know that the only way they can maintain any credibility is to stand by the incredible, and insist that, no matter how difficult the shots, Oswald somehow just got "lucky". Or so one would assume...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bullets were reloads with low powder charges.

Brilliant assassination plot there, Gil. Shoot JFK with TWO "reloads with low powder charges".

I guess the assassins just wanted to give their victim a fighting chance to survive the attack against him by using weak-sister bullets with "low powder charges" (TWO of them from TWO different guns, no less).

As I said -- Brilliant!

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bullets were reloads with low powder charges.

Brilliant assassination plot there, Gil. Shoot JFK with TWO "reloads with low powder charges".

I guess the assassins just wanted to give their victim a fighting chance to survive the attack against him by using weak-sister bullets with "low powder charges" (TWO of them from TWO different guns, no less).

As I said -- Brilliant!

Sorry, David, but you've shot yourself in the foot, and revealed your lack of research on this subject.

From the CIA's Manual on Assassination, used during its "successful" operation in Guatemala:

“pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced..Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.”

"Public figures or guarded officials may be killed with great reliability and some safety if a firing point can be established prior to an official occasion. The propaganda value of this system may be high.”

Note that David Morales was one of those training the rebel troops of Castillo-Armas, and using this manual.

Note also that the propaganda chief for this operation was E. Howard Hunt.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is apparently easier said than done to exit this site. I've renewed my quest according to what should be the correct way.

Meanwhile, it is astonishing.

Jim DiEugenio succeeds with what he always does as a response to any posting I make: divert from the issue at hand.

How difficult is it, really, to discuss the question I raised when I started this thread:

Did the Warren Commission knowingly cover up a conspiracy?

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Warren Commission knowingly cover up a conspiracy?

The Warren Commission either knew or should have known that they were actively or passively

participating in obstruction of justice. The "should have known" is a legal standard that is commonly relied

upon by courts. It should be noted that this standard had its genesis in military matters involving command

responsibility, but has been invoked routinely in civilian cases and in both criminal and civil trials.

"In order to hold a military commander either criminally or civilly liable under the doctrine of command responsibility,

the prosecution/plaintiff must prove three elements: 1) those committing the atrocities/war crimes were under the

command of the defendant; 2) the commander knew or should have known, based on the surrounding circumstances

at the time, that the subordinates were engaging in impermissible conduct; and 3) the commander failed to prevent or

punish those responsible for the commission of such crimes.

"In the United States this legal standard was first articulated by the Supreme Court in the case In re Yamaxxxxa,

327 U.S. 1 (1946). In Yamaxxxxa, the court held that under the laws of war, a commander was responsible for

the actions of his subordinates even if he did not directly order them to commit the crimes, provided that he knew

or should have known that troops under his command were engaged in wrongful acts. As part of its holding, the

court recognized that military commanders, by virtue of their position, were under an affirmative duty to act and

that a failure to prevent or punish their subordinates could lead to personal criminal liability.

"Under the first element listed above, the prosecutor or plaintiff must demonstrate that the individuals committing

the violations of the laws of war were the subordinates of the commander. These individuals need not have been

the direct subordinates of the commander charged. The commanders need only to have been in a position where

they could legally or practically order the subordinates to engage or refrain from engaging in an action. In short, the

commanders could be located anywhere along the chain of command, so long as they had the ability to issue an

order to subordinates."

Because the Warren Commission had authority granted to them by the President of the United States they were in a

"command" position, by definition.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You are missing the point.

It is a monumental difference as to whether they knew, or did not know, that they were covering up something? Do I have to ask whether you understand this? I have studied this question extensively and had in mind to bring forward a whole range of alternative reasons for the WCs behavior and their from the outset flawed mission.

What they should have done, or did not do is an entirely different question. That's not what I wanted this thread to be about. Start another thread about this question if you find it interesting.

However, it is not possible for me to discuss any issue - some members here are more interested in bullying me than discuss the questions I raise, which is why I will no longer be a member of this site. The bullying is of no concern, the fact that I cannot raise questions is.

Best to you,

//GV

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't you mention the fact that the CBS shooters weren't using Oswald's C2766 rifle? (Which, of course, they weren't.) I'm surprised you didn't mention that fact.

David, exactly what was the reenactment attempting to prove, that it was POSSIIBLE or that it was fact ?

You take MASTER riflemen

Positioned at a different distance

Have them firing at stationary targets

With a weapon other than the alleged murder weapon

What the hell do you think you're PROVING ?

None of the controls that existed at the time of the crime are being used.

IOW, YOU'RE NOT RE-ENACTING ANYTHING !!!

ROFL

Good point , Gil - moreover, you can not re-enact something that did not occur!

Reminds of the joke about the window on the 6th Floor in the Museum that is there now - "it still looks like it did when Kennedy was shot - Oswald is not there!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

The Secret Service were there in Dealy Plaza that day, and we can see that they did not move an inch when the shots rang out.

And that is not funny.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You are missing the point.

It is a monumental difference as to whether they knew, or did not know, that they were covering up something? Do I have to ask whether you understand this? I have studied this question extensively and had in mind to bring forward a whole range of alternative reasons for the WCs behavior and their from the outset flawed mission.

What they should have done, or did not do is an entirely different question. That's not what I wanted this thread to be about. Start another thread about this question if you find it interesting.

However, it is not possible for me to discuss any issue - some members here are more interested in bullying me than discuss the questions I raise, which is why I will no longer be a member of this site. The bullying is of no concern, the fact that I cannot raise questions is.

Best to you,

//GV

Did the Warren Commission knowingly cover up a conspiracy?

Glenn,

When Allen Dulles withholds the FACTS about CIA/MAFIA assassination attempts on Castro - does this not go a long way in knowingly covering-up one of the ALTERNATIVES to Oswald=Lone Nut?

One of the KEY ELEMENTS in determining whether Cuba, Castro or related COULD have been involved, and therefore takes attention away and adds reasonable doubt to the Oswald case?

Is this not KNOWINGLY covering up a conspiracy? The conspiracy to assassinate Castro.. which, at the time of the WC, would have direct bearing on the JFK assassination

Especially after Castro's warning whcih also losses meaning without knowledge of the attempts on his life...

When Warren refuses to even LOOK at the files on Oswald.... and is told by LBJ to head the Commission due to what he knows about Mexico City... which is DIRECT EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY to kill JFK,

and that Warren MUST HELP AVOID WWIII...

If Dulles, Warren, Hoover and LBJ all know that there is direct evidence of CIA assassination attempts AND Oswald enlisting help or working thru communist countries...

How again is this NOT the WC knowingly covering up a conspiracy... infact they knowingly covered up MANY conspiracies....

Or am I missing the point too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

You are missing the point.

It is a monumental difference as to whether they knew, or did not know, that they were covering up something? Do I have to ask whether you understand this? I have studied this question extensively and had in mind to bring forward a whole range of alternative reasons for the WCs behavior and their from the outset flawed mission.

What they should have done, or did not do is an entirely different question. That's not what I wanted this thread to be about. Start another thread about this question if you find it interesting.

However, it is not possible for me to discuss any issue - some members here are more interested in bullying me than discuss the questions I raise, which is why I will no longer be a member of this site. The bullying is of no concern, the fact that I cannot raise questions is.

Best to you,

//GV

Let me re-phrase my answer. In my opinion, the Warren Commission members knew that obstruction of justice was taking place. This is evidenced by many different things.

However, I originally phrased my answer as "knew or should have known" because I do not believe that some of the members necessarily knew the extent of the cover-up.

Still, they chose to "look the other way" when evidence of obstruction was right before their eyes.

One example: Gerald Ford even admitted to changing the location of the back wound by moving it up! He did this in order to mislead us into believing that the SBT was plausible.

Glenn, I have not bullied you. I think I have been rather kind under the circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced. Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.”

This seems like a good time to re-post a great quote from an LNer named "Bud" who hangs out at the acj Usenet newsgroup and punishes CTers relentlessly with his common sense:

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...